November 07, 2017

Does Hollywood favor gun control because it makes sexual assault easier?

The great allure of progressivism is that it is entirely built upon feeling good about yourself. Real-world results are irrelevant. If a policy fails, it’s always someone else’s fault – usually sexists and racists, but often both.

This allows progressives to ignore the contradictions built into their theories of governance. Nowhere is this clearer than in the realm of self defense.

Progressives love gun control. It is right up there with abortion as a core principle of the movement. They believe that if only guns were restricted or banned outright, violent crime would drop dramatically if not cease altogether.

At the same time, they also believe that men are natural sexual predators, filled with toxic masculinity that leads them to prey on vulnerable (but otherwise super-strong) females.

Indeed, according to them, college campuses are nothing more than game preserves for rapists. Of course, actual crime statistics don’t bear this out, but that doesn't stop them from believing that rape gangs are lurking in the frat next door.

Their solution is to build a convoluted and extra-legal quasi-judicial system that is entirely useless against non-student predators. Stranger still, even under the most severe rules, it can do nothing to stop an attack in progress. It is entirely based on punishment after the fact.

One would think that if they were truly worried about sexual assault they would be demanding concealed carry classes as part of freshmen orientation. The reason should be obvious:

Firearms are the great equalizer.

These small, hand-held devices allow a 90-lb woman to achieve combat superiority over a man more than twice her size. His superior size and strength count for far less once she has a weapon in her possession.

Gun control advocates hit back by claiming that men also use them, but this merely puts them in the position of equality. But that is far better than the position of physical inferiority before the gun was introduced.

Whenever there was a terrorist attack, the Obama administration’s defenders hastened to mention that the risk of dying in such an attack were actually very remote. The same also applies to multiple-victim shootings, like the one in Texas.

Far more common are mundane sexual assaults and homicides. Chicago is experiencing an equivalent of one of these massacres every couple of weeks, but the press yawns and looks away. This is because reminding people of how violent Democrat-ruled satrapies have become is bad for the brand. It also might highlight how effective guns are at deterring street crime - at least where they're allowed by law.

The thesis is simple and stunningly obvious: If women vulnerable women were armed and able to defend themselves from predators in the film industry, predators like Harvey Weinstein would never have been able to rack up their considerable score of victims.

It is an entirely different thing for a man of his size to physically intimidate a woman and force himself upon here when she has no effective means to resist than when she has a pistol on her person.

In the former case, things play out pretty much as they have done: trapped by a man of considerable physical and political power, even well-connected actresses feel they have no option but to submit and hope their "sacrifice" pays off down the road.

But if that woman has both the means and the legal right to those means to defend herself, the game changes. A creep like Weinstein might very well attempt rape, but the credible threat of a bullet in his pecker would change the situation considerably.

If, say, Rose McGowan shot him instead of submitting, not only would she have been spared the humiliation of her attack, the predator's career would have been cut short years early.

Indeed, this bring us to another point progressives want to ignore: sexual predators tend to be repeat offenders. They will keep going until they are caught. Even the legal system must bow before the rich and connected. But all the lawyers, retired Mossad agents and studio connections in the world won't help when staring down the barrel of a snub-nosed .38.

I used to think that Hollywood opposed gun control because it felt good and because they had bodyguards.

I'm now thinking that both of those things are true, but they also like it because it makes rape that much easier.